Did we really just go for two when down 9?
- Thread starter Mr. Royce
- Start date
Yeah I agree with that, that's what I've been saying. All kicking the extra point three does is extend hope, doesn't actually make you any closer to winning the game.
And how would that be any different than if we missed the two point conversion after a second touchdown?
Because if your are down 7, you don't need a two point conversion anymore. Surely you will agree that making an extra point is more likely than converting a two point conversion.
if you go down 9 with about a minute left you dont have time for 2 possessions, come on dude figure it out.
Did not read the entire thread, but agree that 99% of all coaches would have kicked the XP and then try the onside.
The only way, I could have seen going for 2 pts in that situation would have been to use a fake XP and try to catch them by surprise.
However, the call probably made no difference in the final outcome.
The only way, I could have seen going for 2 pts in that situation would have been to use a fake XP and try to catch them by surprise.
However, the call probably made no difference in the final outcome.
The problem is not converting the 2 point conversion! It's the same problem if you don't convert it after a second touchdown
yes i do. that is why i kick the extra point and be down 8 and there is still hope .
Right and if all you are trying to do is extend hope, then kick it. Extending hope does not mean you increase your odds of actually winning the game at all though.
You are not just extending hope. If you get the onside kick down 8 Purdue has way more pressure to get a stop, not commit a PI, etc. and the offense has the momentum. You are trying to get the ball down 1 score for that very reason.
So wouldn't they have even more pressure on them if Iowa converted the two point conversion? Then they know Iowa won't even need to get a two point conversion to tie the game, they will only need an extra point.
Up 8 or 7, Purdue is playing to get a stop and with the pressure to get a stop if Iowa recovers. Penalties, missed assignments, to blitz or not to blitz are all magnified at that pont. The pressure, momentum, etc. is the same if Iowa recovers down 8 or 7 at that point. It's nonexistent if Iowa recovers down 9. This isn't rocket science.
Wait so Iowa would gain no extra momentum from having converted a two point conversion compared with kicking an extra point? According to my momentum calculations, that is false.
You kick it there every damn time.
And good God, if you do stroke out and decide to go for 2, you don’t run THAT play.
Reminds me of the New Kirk decisions where he was calling shit just to call it.
And good God, if you do stroke out and decide to go for 2, you don’t run THAT play.
Reminds me of the New Kirk decisions where he was calling shit just to call it.
Agree with that. Not converting the two point conversion is the problem here, not when you choose to go for it.
You keep saying this but I don't think you're seeing the other side of the coin (or purposely avoiding it). It's not exactly about increasing your chances of winning at that moment, it's about not drastically decreasing them down to nearly zero at that moment.
Let's say there is a 1% chance of winning before the PAT or 2pt conversion. Get the PAT and it probably stays around 1%, don't get the 2pt and it's now a .000000000000001% chance. Extending the game with a nearly automatic PAT keeps the possibility there. Getting zero, not so much.
If you plan on not converting the 2 point conversion, then yes you shouldn't go for it. I don't think that was the coaching staff's intent though. Your odds of winning go to near zero whenever you miss the two point conversion, whether that's after the first or a second touchdown.
Do you understand that if you kick the EP (which is a much higher % than the 2pt conversio), you have a chance to go for 2 after the on-sides recovery? If you miss the 2pt conversion, the on-sides is futile (especially when around 1 min). Every analyst (including Chuck Long on the B1G network said you don't do it the way Iowa did it.
Instead of having any semblance of a chance, Iowa decided to go all in (just like the % of Stanley getting 12yds on Read play on 4th down..).
I will just agree to disagree.
Okay Brian - we get it. Go enjoy your 600k for failing, again.
So what happens if you miss the two point conversion after a later touchdown? Missing the two point conversion is bad. Whenever that happens.
Isn't kicking the PAT almost by definition, "playing not to lose"! Sorry, had to say it. Point is there is NOT a 100% right or wrong here. You'd think they may have had a better play in their pocket for a 2 pt conversion. I'd personally prefer to complain about that! Not when the 2 pt conversion should be attempted.
If 9 points is just a number and it doesn't matter what order or in what manner they are acquired, sure.
Instead of running the conversion Iowa could've decided their strategy would be to just kneel the ball and then try 3 onside attempts and kick 3 field goals. If 9 points is just a number, that would make sense. It would be a horrible coaching move but it would make sense.
So I guess I'm saying there could be any number of permutations to accumulate 9 points but was this particular one the best one for the circumstances? I would say no.
So how are you more likely to score nine points by going extra point, TD, two point conversion instead of two point conversion, TD, extra point? Do your odds of converting the two point conversion somehow go up the longer you wait?
Momentum. Score, PAT, recover onside and another TD IN 1 MINUTE = Momentum. Yes, you still have to convert the 2 pointer, but if all those things break your way, the team’s confidence level + the defense being shook could create a small advantage
wow. hopefully you are just arguing to be arguing. by missing the 2 pt er we are down 9 that means 2 possessions . there is not enough time left for 2 possessions.
I’m completely baffled at how many people are supporting the decision to go for two. I always thought we had a smart fan base. I understand some like Ferentz and others don’t, but going for two was stupid.
Didn’t read most of the bantering garbage in this thread; my only input is that this coaching staff has a heck of a lot bigger problems than their decision whether or not to go for 2 sooner or later in a game in which they gave their team very little chance to win from the opening kick.
I guess you cannot grasp that kicking the EP is a much greater % than the 2pt conversion. Take the easy path.
Guarantee you this conversation wouldn't be happening had he gone for the EP yesterday.
